The only time I think it makes sense to pay by location is if you require employees to live in a HCOL area.
You want me on site in Boston every day? You bet I'm asking for more money. (Or giving a pass on a low offer...)
B - 3 years ago
Outsourcing may be a precedent but that doesn't mean it's a GOOD thing. Personally I'm enjoying how the "pay people what they're worth" reaction illuminates that.
Daniel Seltzer - 3 years ago
Companies, please pay employees based on the value they deliver, not based on where they choose to live.
Long Time Remote Employee - 3 years ago
If the company allows employees to live anywhere, then how do you justify paying 2 people of the same experience / level / tenure different salaries? If I choose to buy a more expensive home than my coworker, is it my company's responsibility to help me cover my mortgage?
Part of what makes the remote option work is being focused on the outcomes and results your employees produce. The salary you pay employees is the most direct way that you articulate their value to your company. Do you actually get that much more value out of your employee in San Francisco than the one in Des Moines?Companies may need to pay more to entice the talent in large, expensive cities, but you don't need to limit your pool when your employees can live anywhere!
If you're paying different salaries based purely on your employee's location, don't be surprised when they don't feel valued by you and look elsewhere.
Mario Gray - 3 years ago
What about outsourcing off shore? IT support, coding, transcription..... The main selling point is reduced costs due to reduced pay for equivalent work. This question is not as black and white as one would first think.
Bushware - 3 years ago
Companies don't charge different prices based on where the customer lives.
The only time I think it makes sense to pay by location is if you require employees to live in a HCOL area.
You want me on site in Boston every day? You bet I'm asking for more money. (Or giving a pass on a low offer...)
Outsourcing may be a precedent but that doesn't mean it's a GOOD thing. Personally I'm enjoying how the "pay people what they're worth" reaction illuminates that.
Companies, please pay employees based on the value they deliver, not based on where they choose to live.
If the company allows employees to live anywhere, then how do you justify paying 2 people of the same experience / level / tenure different salaries? If I choose to buy a more expensive home than my coworker, is it my company's responsibility to help me cover my mortgage?
Part of what makes the remote option work is being focused on the outcomes and results your employees produce. The salary you pay employees is the most direct way that you articulate their value to your company. Do you actually get that much more value out of your employee in San Francisco than the one in Des Moines?Companies may need to pay more to entice the talent in large, expensive cities, but you don't need to limit your pool when your employees can live anywhere!
If you're paying different salaries based purely on your employee's location, don't be surprised when they don't feel valued by you and look elsewhere.
What about outsourcing off shore? IT support, coding, transcription..... The main selling point is reduced costs due to reduced pay for equivalent work. This question is not as black and white as one would first think.
Companies don't charge different prices based on where the customer lives.